I have lost the plot guys, don't get the in joke.What about the latest proposals: get rid of these DNA data bases. I watched a drama recently on BBC, ‘the five daughters’, about the guy who strangled those 5 girls (prostitutes) in Ipswich. They only caught that guy because he had been picked up previously for some minor (non sexual) offence and his DNA was on record. Most criminals go on to re-offend; surely keeping their DNA on record gives us a much better chance of catching them. Does Nick Clegg and the Coalition, want to help the criminals?

Thought Mark was away on his hols, although still keeping a watchful eye on MW from time to time? Anyway it's been running like a snail on Vallium since midnight, so I've been watching a couple of programmes on Channel 4's internet 4oD, to which MW's supernatural sceptics Andrew and James have drawn my attention.

Asimov, pay no attention to those comic-cuts. A number of people on MW have known each other for ages and enjoy having a good banter whenever they can. You'll get used to it.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not at all happy with the way this government is doing what I feared the Tories would do if they got into power. We simply cannot cope with having too many radical changes thrown at us all at once, especially when there are far more important issues, like the state of the economy and Britain's massive debt, badly needing to be dealth with.

I'm not in favour of these databases holding every suspected criminal's, DNA indefinitely. In Scotland the police only hold for 3 years the DNA of people suspected of, but not charged with, committing crimes if these crimes are of a sexual or violent nature, their reasoning being that if an offence IS committed it will be done within that period. They can, however, apply to the courts for an extension of that period if they can prove they have good grounds for wishing to do so. This sounds like a fairly reasonable compromise to me. Also I fail to see why petty criminals should be treated in the same way as those who commit serious crimes.

I'm not happy either with this idea of handing more power back to the people. True the last government were despicable control freaks, but this lot will have to be very careful indeed here or things could easily swing the other way, and then what have you got?

As for an elected House of Lords, you might as well do away with it altogether, because if peers are elected, then the Lords will become a clone of the Commons, which defeats the very reason for which it was set up - i.e. to keep the Commons under control.

If Nick Clegg had any scruples, he would have let the Tories run a minority government, which would have caused another election within 6 months and he could have put forward the proposal for true PR, saying that first past the post doesn't work...instead he choose the route of personal power! A total sell out for true Liberal aspirations.

I don't feel that Nick Clegg did anything of the sort. In fact I think he made the right decision in giving his party their first sniff of power since 1945. At least the electorate will have a chance to see what they can (or cannot) do. What the heck do people vote LD for if they don't want them to have any power? If people stop supporting them, then any future chance of them forming a government for the first time since WW1 will go completely out the window. Also I'm not convinced that another election in 6 months would have given the Tories outright power. At best, they might have been returned with a tiny majority, as happened to Harold Wilson in 1974, and at worst, there would have been another hung parliament.